Gatwick North terminal - not my aisle!!

[wiggy]

Time to top stewing and start posting, cos as a worker in the industry if the nonsense I saw this morning continues Aviation workers in the UK are going to be looking for new jobs.
Traveling early this AM through Gatwick North terminal; I, along with many others, had run the gaunlet of the charming Yellow T shirt brigade and were heading through the roped channels towards the boarding pass control booths. My queue stops, due to the speed of processing of one particular passenger. File of people builds up behind us. Then several of us notice the two booths to the left of us are suddenly clear so we decide to ask, ever so nicely, if it's possible to slide across, under the barriers to be processed via one of the vacant lines.
Answer.. "No".....We ask again..."No". Thought about asking WTFN but decide as this is UK best to shut up and wait otherwise we will all be no doubt labelled as disruptive and invited to meet the man and women in black. So over a dozen seething pax are left standing in line while the two other boarding card checkers gaze at their nails.
I've looked back on what happened, can't see any security rational to this nonsense, no "Elf and Safety" problems, so I have to conclude it was sheer bl***dy mindedness.
I fear for the future of the UK's airports, I really do.

[Departures Beckham]

Just a possibility....

To comply with Department for Transport requirements, a certain amount of passengers must remove their shoes and place them through the x-ray machine, rather than simply walk through the archway wearing them. I believe that they acheive this at LGW by selecting security lanes at random and making them 100% shoe x-ray, whilst others will allow pax to walk through freely.

It could therefore be for this reason that they refused to allow you to change 'lanes', as it would obviously not be advantageous to allow a person to change lanes after realising that they'd be subjected to a higher level of security check in their original lane. Even if your lane wasn't x-raying shoes, there may be a blanket "no lane-change" rule in force to prevent confusion/maintain uniformity.

As I said .... just a possibility.

[PAXboy]

On my last trip through there in early march, staff in the North said it was one third have to have shoes x-rayed and so one queue in three is a shoe-off queue.

[wiggy]

Morning Guys

No, it wasn't down to shoes. Once through the boarding card booths the security screening area was v quiet ( I wonder why:bored: ) and the security screeners were quite happy to let us select our own arch/x-Ray queue ( and dumbo here still managed to get the shoes off line :D ). I'm afraid I still think this episode was solely due to simple b***y mindedness by the ladies doing the boarding cards.

I know many of us here work in the industry and know that a Sunday AM early start ( or finish) isn't good for the sense of humour....but some staff ( and the managers who perhaps do indeed enforce a "no line change rule") need to remember that the travelling public pay their wages and if this sort of nonsense and lack of common sense continues the public won't be travelling through Gatwick, or the UK for that matter.

[Final 3 Greens]

wiggy

Were the from a temp agency?

I experienced similar stupidity from a temp who told me to put my laptop back in the case until I got to the screening machines because I would be carrying two pieces of hand luggage.

My reply was that this was ridiculous and I would not comply. (and I didn't.)

I then reported the incident to a supervisor who said it was lack of knowledge and that he would put him right.

[MyData]

Grrrrr

Was at Gatwick North last Wednesday evening for the first time in years. Took 50 (five-zero) minutes to get through security. Only 3 of the 9 available scanners in operation. Huge queues, much consternation.

What really, really got my goat is the life size cardboard cut outs they have. Of a smiling chap with his one bag and saying "I'm smiling because I've only got one bag". Actually mate, I'm very pi**ed off because I've only got one back and it is the numptie fellow passengers ahead of me who don't quite comprehend that 2 is more than 1, and so is 3, and 4 for that matter.

And the priority lane was closed - good thing I didn't buy the upgrade on the Gatwick express.

So before I revert totally to gas-guzzling selfish personal car transport I might suggest that the government air transport policy is changed to a system where each major airport is duplicated across town and we have "My First Airport" experiences for the once-per-year traveller and those who have to stop to read all the yellow sign directions, and don't quite realise shoes, coats, electronic devices, knives etc. have to be declared before security. And there will also be "Professional Airports" where frequent fliers can go - of course these airports will be funded by the additional tax revenues generated by frequent fliers. Those using a "Professional Airport" will be allowed one non-Professional Airport guest but will be responsible and liable for their behaviour at all times.

F3G - I had similar at LHR a couple of weeks ago, some numptie getting all hot and bothered about the two bag scenario "Yes, but this one fits into this one, I'm only getting the smaller one out so I can get my laptop out, as your colleagues will soon be demanding of me..."

Gatwick: An airport to avoid in the future!

[WHBM]

BAA have been fined (yes, and quite substantially) by the DfT for not meeting their security time targets. Alas the fines go to Gordon Brown (who doubtless is never stuck in a queue), not to you and me whose time is wasted.

To overcome this, they came up with the idea of "one bag only". Of course it was presented as being for security, not as a cash-saving exercise for BAA. Nor could they invest in more screeners, because being good business people there is no Return on Investment from that.

There is a management belief that "one bag only" will be their financial salvation.

The pre-screeners (known to some as the "yellow jackets", to others as the "gate lice") are obtained from an agency source. You will all have noticed their only qualification is that they were rejected by McDonalds to be burger flippers. They work to a fixed format with no discretion because that is all they are good for. As with much of aviation security, with a lot of money sloshing around for no good purpose there are always business services which suddenly materialise to help you spend said money.

In a sane world British Airways would be having BAA's guts for garters in the media at every opportunity for screwing up their hub operations. Unfortunately now BA have completely retreated to the BAA hubs at London it is BAA who can call the tune. Do they have to give ALL the gates at T5 to BA ? Only if BA are nice to BAA and their management. Do BA want to have any increase in gate numbers at all ? Only if BA are nice to BAA and their management.

[James 1077]

The stupid thing is that it is actually in BAAs interest to get people through security as quickly as possible.

I used to turn up 2 hours before each flight, check in, make my way through security and then sit down to a spot of breakfast/coffee/shopping etc while I waited for my flight.

Now I turn up 2 hours before each flight, check in, stand in a queue for a minimum of 1 hour (never had it shorted than this in a BAA airport - and once managed a pretty amazing 2 hours - luckily the flight was delayed). Once through I have no time for a meal or shopping as I have to go straight to my gate and board.

If everyone else has this experience they must be losing a fortune through not having enough staff to open up all of the aisles.

[mt1832]

I'd agree with that. I like to be on time and have always aimed to be at the airport 2 hours before the flight to allow for road traffic etc. and then used the spare time for some retail therapy and a coffee.

I still allow 2 hours but now very rarely have any spare time for shopping and relaxing before the flight boards, other than just enough time to buy the stuff that security confiscate!

[groundbum]

what the CAA/DFT should do is take one of the three London airports from BAA and give it to somebody else to run. Bet you'd see BAA suddenly wake up at the remaining two airports. I suspect they know they have a captive market so why bother to tweak all the knobs and buttons in the system when they could be sat down having a cup of tea metaphorically?

G

[PAXboy]

groundbum Bet you'd see BAA suddenly wake up at the remaining two airports.Bet you wouldn't!! I have said this before, so I shall be brief.

After such a change, the people that run the place would be the same as run it now. They would STILL have no incentive because the way in which Pax view and use the three airports is set. Whether choice is by route and destination, living close to the field, cost, who is paying or whatever - they are not going to change that. The only thing that can change the horrors of Heathrow is the govt demanding more and making financial penalties until they do. No UK govt will do that.

Besides, the problem will be solved by more people using continental airports for transfer and the numbers in Hounslow will start to reduce. Heathrow lost it's future a long time ago.

[skydriller]

....smiling chap with his one bag and saying "I'm smiling because I've only got one bag". Actually mate, I'm very pi**ed off because I've only got one back and it is the numptie fellow passengers ahead of me who don't quite comprehend that 2 is more than 1, and so is 3, and 4...

I know that once a year travellers can be numpties (love the "professional Airport" idea!!), but I am convinced that this is because the UK is different to the rest of the world with the one bag thing. If you fly into the UK with 2 carry ons, you would expect to be able to fly out with 2 carry ons, wouldnt you?

In a sane world British Airways would be having BAA's guts for garters in the media at every opportunity for screwing up their hub operations.

This is something I dont understand either. Why is O'Leary the only guy to have had a go at BAA and the UK security bollox introduced by the government? If BA do get allocated T5 for all their flights, would they be able to introduce thier own security rules? They had to change their product marketing strategy last year as a result of the UK baggage rules too.

Regards, SD..

[Seat 59A]

I'm glad it is not just me.

I flew out of LGW N last week, after trips to SFO and various European destinations (all through LHR) and carrying exactly the same two pieces of carry-on, a Hartmann rollbag and a Tumi briefcase, that had been allowed on all long and short haul flights for the past two years.

Fast-track entrance closed (although lane functioning) and all pax diverted through a funnel of yellow shirts handing out plastic bags for the liquids brigade. Do I have liquids? No. I have to measure your bag. Of course, it doesn't fit in the frame (by about 5 mm, thanks to the wheels). Told to go and check it in to which I object, at which point the yellow shirt summons a black shirt who threatens me with denied boarding for being obstructive. Instantly! No discussion allowed, no dissent allowed, but an instant escalation for absolutely no reason.

Take bag over to BA checkin, where the agent tells me the bag is perfectly ok for BA, but that many people complain that LGW staff are "anal retards" (her exact words!!!).

Cannot agree more. What a vile airport, staffed by nasty, authoritarian, stupid and chippy individuals.

Scenario got even worse when I finally did pass through "security", in a rather grim mood.
"Any liquids, mate?"
"No. ... And I am not your 'mate'".
Another immediate escalation ... "I find your attitude objectionable and personally insulting to me" (I guess this is the one bit of training they have absorbed). Wrong! I find YOUR attitude objectionable and insulting, but then I am only the poor old pax, not the jobsworth with petty authority to screw me around. Naturally, my bag went aside for a delayed, and very slow, additional check (with absolutely no reason, except bloody-mindedness, so good job there wasn't anything on the conveyor that actually merited additional manual checking).

The only good thing is that I didn't hit the 1 in 3 shoe lane (not like the time before when I had my shoes scanned because they went off and then did hit the 1 in 3 shoe lane and had to have them scanned again, 7 yards later, even though the muppet had just seen me put them through the first scanner).

Its LHR for me from now on. The numptie ratio at LGW is just too high. But seriously, a little consistency would be really appreciated.

[ulxima]

Gatwick: An airport to avoid in the future


Gatwick: an airport I have been avoiding for so long......

Ulxima

[Capetonian]

If you think Gatwick is bad, and I agree, it is, try Luton, which is worse.

I was standing in the long and slow moving queue for immigration (UK/EU passports) with my son,aged 10, who desperately needed a toilet. The 'Non EU' line was empty .... and the immigration officer was twiddling his thumbs. So I asked the bonehead, terminally stupid, uneducated, thick as pig****, pig-ignorant (sorry pigs are smart), loutish oaf of a 'security' guard if we could sneak under the rope and go through that way. I was perfectly pleasant, and explained why, although it would have been obvious to anyone with even half a brain cell and one functioning eye (yes, I mean you, Gordon).

He looked at us as if we'd crawled out from under a stone, and just shook his head slowly, not even 'sorry, morenmejobswerffmate'. So I asked why, bad move, at which he drew himself up to his full 6' 6" to appear threatening and said : "No way."

I later found out, when making an official complaint, that these cretins do have the discretion to allow people through, but what is the point of allowing discretion to people who have an IQ of 12, and that's on a good day.

Rant over ....

[Capetonian]

It happens at Heathrow - T5 in this case. I received this email this morning from a friend who flew out earlier this week. I've removed any details which could identify anyone concerned. This was two middle aged professional couples travelling together - we're not talking about a group of hooligans.

We reached the boarding gates and I was pulled aside for a random search. The rest of our party automatically stood aside to wait for me and the security officer decided this was not necessary and tackled them with a barrage of words demanding that they move on - well xxxxxx definitely felt that she was rude and told her so and refused to move but to take her name - she became incensed and became more rude and abusive and pulled xxxxxx out and made him be searched! It was all very upsetting and finally once we all boarded the plane xxxxxx reported her to the BA staff who were definitely unhappy about this and immediately followed it up by going to find this woman and get her name. She was rude to them as well and so an investigation/report was set in motion. Rudeness and victimization is not on!

[ulxima]

If you think Gatwick is bad, and I agree, it is, try Luton, which is worse.


I'd rather take "SeaFrance" from Calais to Dover and viceversa.... :}

Ulxima

[G SXTY]

If it’s any consolation, the staff channels at LGW are just as bad. I have never met such consistently anal ‘security’ staff anywhere else.
A couple of recent examples:

(1) Having queued for 10 minutes in the morning rush, Captain’s flight case is randomly searched. Security person finds a miniscule bottle of sterilising gel, which has been sat, forgotten, at the bottom of his case for weeks if not months. “This is liquid, it needs to be in a plastic bag.” Person then ambles off to find one while the entire crew waits. Captain decides it’s not worth the hassle and tells one of her colleagues not to bother as he hasn’t got time to wait. Instant response; “Well, if you’d had it in a plastic bag you wouldn’t have had to wait in the first place.” Result, one highly - and unnecessarily - p1ssed off captain who then needs calming down before we get to the aircraft. A CRM dream . . .

(2) My flight case is randomly searched. Security person attempts to open the front flap, which won’t as the lock is jammed. I am then asked to open it for him, at which point I explain I can’t because it’s jammed. My entire case is then emptied, right down the year old Mars Bars, every folder and piece of paper is leafed through, and the empty case is X-rayed again. My blood pressure rises by the second as security person tries to remember where everything went, and end up repacking my own case. Am finally declared safe to be put in control of a 400mph bus. Thank God they didn’t find the flight deck crash axe . . .

I’m afraid it’s peanuts and monkeys folks. :ugh:

[PierreM]

Ignorant airport staff and lack of resource management (eg inadequate number of scanners in use for the passenger flow, etc) are two of the main reasons why I now use Eurostar and the other high speed trains to get to many Eurpean destinations. City centre station locations is one feature that airports obviously cannot match, but I've yet to meet any train service staff who are anywhere as bad as the majority of the airport staff. The train journeys are a real pleasure and for many destinations, more than match the overall travelling times achieved by flying.

[PAXboy]

It makes you realise the true govt policy all along. Make sure that the 'security' is awful that people stop going on the planes. It saves legislating about runways. It saves having to work out why it was such a disaster to sell off the airports in a large block to one company 20+ years ago. It saves having to do anything that requires foresight, management and grit.

[Gibon2]

foresight, management and grit

You do realise that is the official corporate motto of BAA?

[Haven't a clue]

On the other hand I find the security people at Gatwick South friendly and professional. Which is remarkable given the number of liquid laden idiots (who plainly haven't bothered to read any of the messages about prepare for security etc) they have to deal with.

[Glamgirl]

A friend of mine told me the other day...

She'd gone throught staff search at LGW N and had her bag searched. She was told by the woman who searched her bag that she should put her camera in the hold, as cameras aren't allowed airside (the woman obviously didn't have a clue). My friend burst out laughing because it was so ridiculous. She got reprimanded by the woman for laughing. :ugh:

Gg

[Seat 59A]

Wow!

Great set of posts.

Not only am I not alone, but I feel pathetically grateful that I didn't end up in the British equivalent of Guantanamo Bay!

PS: Forgot to mention that bloody-minded extended bag-check done deliberately to hold me up failed to detect one lip balm and one part-used mini tube of toothpaste collected from VS a couple of weeks ago. Ha! Gotcha!

[42psi]

A friend of mine told me the other day...

She'd gone throught staff search at LGW N and had her bag searched. She was told by the woman who searched her bag that she should put her camera in the hold, as cameras aren't allowed airside (the woman obviously didn't have a clue). My friend burst out laughing because it was so ridiculous. She got reprimanded by the woman for laughing.



Unfortunately this is actually true .... while pax can snap away happily staff at most major UK airports are not allowed cameras airside without prior written permission.

The rules have existed for ages but only recently have been enforced for some reason ..... perhaps it had something to with airside tours being posted on u-tube after being obviously filmed from a catering vehicle :eek:

Annoys me as I quite liked to have the camera with sometimes.



Of course, as with all well thought out rules :rolleyes: ..... they apparently haven't thought what to do about mobile 'phones with cameras :E

[Rob Courtney]

Hmmm so what heppens if your phones got a camera then?

[A2QFI]

Compare and contrast flying, with the Eurotunnel! It occurs to me that they may be a bit too relaxed but it suits me. I have been thru 3 times this year and it almost too easy. Check in with a camera verifying the number plate and a machine checking your credit card, prints a boarding pass and you are done in 2 minutes. Security asks questions about pets and gas cyclinders, I have had the car 'swabbed' for traces of explosives and that's is it. In what way a train being blown up under the sea is thought to be less of a problem than an aircraft being blown up I don't know. I now don't bother with flying anywhere unless there is no other way; as retired person I don't have to go anywhere on business and I have adjusted my holidays to whatever I can do by car/tunnel/ferry

[bandit2106]

I'm sad to say that I've been experiencing grief from security staff at UK airports. I thought it was me, that I must look resentful of the whole stupid farce, and it shows on my face, so I'm simply sport for them.

I've read through this thread, and can relate totally to the "lets scan your shoes 2x in 7yards" at Gatwick, plus the totally unpleasant and threatening behaviour at Luton security, which is an airport that I now totally avoid.

I have 3 flights coming up, and this is how BAA and other UK airports make me feel :(

[liteswap]

@42psi Really? Won't allow cameras airside? Eek!

There's no way I'm putting my SLR and lenses into the hold - just no way. I'm an enthusiastic amateur photographer, not a pro, so I don't have and can't justify a solid metal case that makes it slightly more challenging for bag handlers to damage the stuff inside. I've checked cameras through security every time but, if my normal camera bag were to be confiscated and checked in, I'd rather not fly, thanks.

Won't be long before we have to check-in naked....

[Bealzebub]

But hang on a minute!

There is a "Dixons" airside, selling......... Cameras, memory cards, video cameras, tape, batteries, and something called extended warranties?

Not only that, but they have staff who will put the whole kit together for you and show you how to use it. Of course that is after you have shown mock interest in the extended warranty.

Are these security cleared cameras, much like the security cleared water and other 101+ mg liquids, that are magically transformed by being loaded in to the goods elevator?

[EastMids]

There's no way I'm putting my SLR and lenses into the hold - just no way. I'm an enthusiastic amateur photographer, not a pro, so I don't have and can't justify a solid metal case that makes it slightly more challenging for bag handlers to damage the stuff inside. I've checked cameras through security every time but, if my normal camera bag were to be confiscated and checked in, I'd rather not fly, thanks.

Staff are not meant to take cameras airside - for passengers, its [still] OK. The previously mentioned security screener at LGW was talking absolute crap if it was related to screening a passenger

A

[VS-LHRCSA]

59A

All inconvenience/BAA/security nightmares aside, I'm interested to know why you felt the need to tell the security officer that 'you're not my mate'. I mean, it is something that people say all the time, often without thinking, just one human being to another. I'd be horrified if I'd called someone 'mate' and they'd replied 'I'm not your mate' when all I'm trying to do is be friendly. Out of interest, if it was someone in the street, would you say the same thing. I'm not having a go, just wondering what would possess someone to say such a thing.

[eastern wiseguy]

I agree. It is irritating to be addressed in a casual manner like that. I would prefer to have MINIMAL contact (verbal or otherwise) but since I go through on a daily basis.........

[VS-LHRCSA]

I've clarified my post, I don't think it is irritating at all to be called 'mate' in most circumstances, especially if the person is just being friendly and it's part of their culture - as opposed to being forced. Funnily enough, I DO object to being referred to as 'geeza', which happens from time to time but I would never say anything.

[Skipness One Echo]

It's certainly not considered professional to be called mate in the above circumstances in the UK. I know a lot of people do it but that doesn't make it good manners as many people consider it off putting and discourteous to be addressed in such a laddish manner.

However Brown's Britain is lowest common denominator so you pays your money....

[Seat 59A]

VS - I think Skipness and eastern-wiseguy are right. It is unprofessional and discourteous in this context in the UK.

On the other hand, I agree with you. 99.9% of the time I would let it go. But there comes a point where one has been riled so much that you think - why should I? Unfortunately, it is symptomatic of grubby Britain that this is becoming widespread, just like being addressed on first name terms by a vast range of service sectors, just like going into SpecSavers for reading glasses and being spoken to r e a l l y s l o w l y and in LOUD VOICE just because you are over 50.

"Mate" is perfectly acceptable when used by black cab drivers, market traders and as a formal greeting in Australia. In other contexts, I think "sir" or "madam" is polite, neutral, and guaranteed not to cause offence. The problem is that chippy people think they are being forced to be servile - they are not, it is just polite.

Again, the Americans have it right on this one. Say what you like, but they are never less than courteous.

[wings folded]

I don't want, nor expect, to be called "mate", "chum", "pal", "geeza", or whatever, neither in the street nor at an airport terminal, by people who are not intimate friends.

I remember an incident when I held a door open for a group of juveniles, most of whom just passed through, some passed through and grunted, and the last one said "cheers mate".

My children still speak of my response which was along the lines of "we are not acquainted and we are not drinking together".

But I am of course a boring old fart.

[LookingUpInHope]

Funny how things change by location - in Yorkshire, calling someone you don't personally know 'mate' or 'love' is generally accepted as both polite and friendly (though not professional). I'd forgotten that other places view it differently.

[Xeque]

In Cornwall it's "my 'an'some" and "my luvver" or "my bird". But no-one there is stupid enough to use such familiarity in circumstances where people are likely to be very offended. UK airports take note.
Poor Britain. It's all very well moaning about the situation in forums like this but, until you get off your collective butts and really take matters into your own hands, you are going to be prey to the cretins who have been put into positions of 'authority' by 'Blurr', 'Broon' and their cohorts.
Political correctness, over-emphasised terrorist threat, 'elf 'n' safety' - it's all the staff of life to these fools. What really matters to them is reducing the unemployment register and what better way than to invent jobs like these to get the otherwise unemployable off the permanent dole?
You could start by acting as an electorate and demanding that all MP's and Civil Servants join the same queues and undertake the same humiliating and totally pointless inspections as everyone else. Guess how long it would be before things changed for the better? :}

[VS-LHRCSA]

Fair points, was just curious.

However, another way to look at it could be that this job in particular can be an awful job, that is hard to fill. You're up against it all day long. This person in particular is probably doing what he can to make the job bearable by trying to engage with passengers. He may go about it the wrong way in some eyes but he is trying in his own way. If a passenger publicly admonishings him, in front of other passengers and his colleagues, then that passenger is doing his bit drive this person out of the industry, thereby leaving behind the disengaged, outsourced, cheap labour that this forum loves to hate.

Wings folded, that was very brave of you. I take your point, they were ignorant and rude but if you'd done that were I live, you'd probably wake up in hospital.

[Rusland 17]

Poor Britain. It's all very well moaning about the situation in forums like this but, until you get off your collective butts and really take matters into your own hands, you are going to be prey to the cretins who have been put into positions of 'authority' by 'Blurr', 'Broon' and their cohorts. Political correctness, over-emphasised terrorist threat, 'elf 'n' safety' - it's all the staff of life to these fools.You undoubtedly feel better now you've got that off your chest, but your bleak view of the world bears little relation to reality.

"Political correctness" is an expression made up by those who do not believe that everyone deserves to be treated with equal respect.

[Xeque]

"Political correctness" is an expression made up by those who do not believe that everyone deserves to be treated with equal respect.
Exactly! If the men or women I deal with day to day are respectful then I am equally respectful in return. UK Airport security personnel, by treating everyone as a potential terrorist, lay themselves wide open to the total disrespect and disdain of the traveling public. A modicum of common sense applied to their interpretation of the job description would go a long way to help but, sadly, common sense seems to be in short supply where these goons are concerned.

[wings folded]

UK Airport security personnel, by treating everyone as a potential terrorist, lay themselves wide open to the total disrespect and disdain of the traveling public. A modicum of common sense applied to their interpretation of the job description would go a long way to help but, sadly, common sense seems to be in short supply where these goons are concerned.

Compare and contrast with my recent experience at Dublin Airport.

After going through the archway thing and not causing it to beep, I am face to face with a security chappie who holds his arms out sideways at shoulder height, you know the way they do, like a poor imitation of the Angel of the North, which apparently translates verbally into "Would you awefully mind if I search you?"

I raise my arms as high as my disability allows, which to be frank is not very high.

He then engages more normal communication mode (i.e. speech) and asks me to hold my arms up in the air. (Why do they want you to remain like that while they have moved on down and are intensely busy around your ankles? But I digress)

A short, but to the point, explanation from me that being disabled, I just can't do it.

This is the bit I like.

He asks whether it would be painful or uncomfortable if he touches me.

I answer in the negative as long as his frisking is not too aggressive.

"Oh, that's grand" followed by a delicate, but effective, I think, frisk.

He wished me a pleasant flight and I wandered off in far better mood than usual after a search.

Was he trained to ask that question? If so, good for "them".

Or was he just intelligent and humane, in which case good for him.

Either way, nice chap.

[VS-LHRCSA]

I've been trained to ask about touching and how to touch so as to not cause pain in situations such as you've mentioned. Still sounds like a nice chap, though.

[lowcostdolly]

I have just read this thread which has some very interesting responses on particularly the one about being treated as "a potential terroist" leading to no respect etc

Every day I work I go through LGW security and at all times I am treated with courtesy and respect because that is the way I treat these people who have targets to meet and a thankless job to do. It is also one of the most important in safeguarding the traveling public. There are times when I become frustrated by the invasion of privacy and some of the inconsistencies which appears to depend on the discretion of the screener or their supervisor.

I am treated as a "potential terroist" until I prove otherwise and it shouldn't be any other way for anyone.....crew or pax. That is why we have the security checks which are subject to DfT regulations.

Did anybody watch the footage of the bad guys boarding United 93? All very civilised and respectful but not one of them treated as the potential terroists they were and it appeared subject to very few, if any, security checks in the USA.

The system now is not perfect. I get frustrated by some of the organisational issues in the terminal when I travel as SLF....I stood in line for two hours at LGW over the xmas period with two under 5's just to go to Guernsey and yes there are the odd self important jobsworth's as in any job.

I would put up with any of this just to know that when I board a flight as either SLF or crew everyone on board has been subject to rigourous security screening. However I'm sure there will be people who disagree with this.

[Skipness One Echo]

who have targets to meet
Such as? 100% of no terrorists given airside access springs to mind but you think they have others?
You stood in a queue for two hours because of bad management in underesourcing the bloody obvious. Not enough screeners on duty / not enough slack to meet contingencies. That's Running an Airport 1.01 and BAA can't do it. It's not rocket science but somehow our lot arse it up every time.

Is it right to treat everyone as a potential terrorist in the fact that you screen them properly and to a high standard? YES
Is it right to treat everyone as a potential terrorist in the fact that you bark at them, manhandle them and are surly and rude to a civil question simply because you are fed up being asked and you find the public to be big thickos?
NO, I hear McDonalds is hiring if you do....

If you can't see the above distinction then God help us. I agree with the above poster, my treatment in Ireland ( and Europe ) has ALWAYS been professinally screened to a high standard as far as I can tell, but without the British disease of contempt for ones fellow men.

[Xeque]

I take your point.
I have traveled through Bangkok, Singapore, Penang, Kuala Lumpur and Bander Seri (Brunei) in the last 24 months. The security requirements at each of these departure points is the same as in the UK or the United States. Yet, there were no queues, passengers were treated courteously as those special people who pay the wages of airport employees, the necessary checks were carried out and I (for one) passed through the process hardly knowing that it had been carried out at all. And that is how it should be.
What is it that makes security staff at British airports so bl00dy rude and (frankly) so useless at their jobs?
As I said in an earlier post - make Broon and Co join the same queue as regular passengers. This stupidity would be finished in an instant.

[lowcostdolly]

Skipness..... Thank you for telling me I stood on line for 2 hours due to bad management/undersourcing etc. Had grasped that thank you but I still got a decent security check at the end of it. Job done I think :)

This is the second response I have received from you personally which is, quite frankly, obnoxious given that my post was based on my own experiences and very reasonably worded. Treat any airline/ground personnel like this including security then you will rightly reap what you sow at any point of your travel experience :(

I said the system wasn't perfect and it isn't......niether are you. When you have finished polishing your halo apply to Mc Donalds.....I believe they are hiring........:ok:

Xeque I don't know. I wouldn't say they are useless but that is my opinion. Have we had a major incident in the UK recently? Glasgow springs to mind but the bad guy didn't clear security but crashed through the front of the terminal.

I only know what I have experienced which is what my post was based on. I also saw the footage I quoted which is a valid point and thank you for acknowledging.

[Xeque]

Have we had an airborne security threat that originated from an Asian airport recently?
You see? Proper organization, correctly recruited and trained staff, a courteous attitude to the most important people (i.e. the passengers) and the system seems to work - from my perspective anyway.

[Final 3 Greens]

lowcostdolly

I am not criticising your comments at all, as you pass on your experience and your feelings about that experience.

However, do you live in the UK? (never assume.)

Quite a number of posters on this forum are expats and one of the reasons we are often critical of the UK is that we are not used to the, frankly appalling, way things are done in some UK airports and security in particular.

Recently I was stopped at Frankfurt for a spot check and the screener asked me what I do for a living as he was doing the search. He was really interested and made me feel that I was dealing with a fellow human.

In France last week, the same thing happened, the lady was not so friendly, but was totally professionally and polite/considerate, asking if I would rather she spoke English as she could hear from my accent that I was Anglophone.

Then you come to the UK. Not all screeners let the side down, some are pleasant and kind individuals, but a lot of them are surly or rude. I have seen them treat older people like idiots, when a sense of compassion would have mandated extra TLC.

I accept that you encounter this every day and are hardened to it, whereas some of us are not and it makes up mad, not just on a personal treatment level (and I know the ropes, so rarely have any interaction with the screeners), but from seeing people who hold the same citizenship behaving in a way that does not reflect the core British values that I was raised to respect.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that naturalized, first, second or third generation Brits are the problem, in fact they are often kind, polite and helpful - many of the worst screeners are depressingly white, born and bred in the UK.

[lowcostdolly]

Xeque.... no I don't think we have, to answer your question, but with respect I don't think that has anything to do with how they treat individuals in Asia. It has more to do with A) the security threat level from that part of the world (which I don't claim to be fully informed on) and B) as you rightly highlighted their vigilent procedures.

F3G highlighted in a recent thread/post the cultural differences in how airline personnel treat pax from different parts of the world......I guess that would apply to security personel as well?

I'm not excusing the way some of you peeps feel you have been treated by security personnel but just to clarify the "yellow teeshirt/sweatshirt brigade AKA gate lice etc" are not security or are they officially designated pre screeners. They dish out info on all things airport which include the liquid regulations. Listen to them or not it is the pax choice.

Some of these people are no more than children doing an adults job and therefore on a power trip......guess that it was was experienced in the North Terminal and started this thread ??

All I can say that as crew and SLF I have only ever experienced vigilence from BAA. Yes sometimes the system leaves much to be desired on a human/organisational level but if I am as safe as I can be on boarding given the current climate......:ok:

F3G yes I do live in the UK......LGW is my base but at times I use other airports. :)

[ConstantFlyer]

A good employee in any industry is one who has been well trained. A key part of training is having an understanding of how things are done elsewhere. Unfortunately, when budgets are tight, training is sometimes accorded less priority.

Ideally, the security screeners at LGW and some other UK airports would benefit from, say, a 10-day secondment at another major world airport, shadowing counterparts there. They would return with a fresh view and understanding of the processes, as well as a bit of an insight into what their customers will have experienced at the start of the other end of their journeys.

Sadly, this is unlikely to happen. But, were it to, it might help.

[lowcostdolly]

:hmm: I went through a certain european airport (not UK). I brought a 330ml bottle of water from my hotel room to keep me going to the airport. Put it in the bottle bit of my bag when it was half drunk and then forgot about it. The bottle bit is on the outside of my bag.

Like all good SLF I pulled out my seperate plastic bag and placed it seperatly on the belt.......still completely forgetting to bin the bottle. How dizzy am I? :=

Bag was then screened and pulled for a random search. The officer completly missed my bottle which was right under his nose!!

I'm not sure that is the sort of "fresh view and understanding of the proccesses" that should be brought back to UK. However the officer was charming to me so all is well..... even when I handed him the bottle which I had then noticed ;)

Do agree with you tho constant flyer. We can all learn things from each other sometimes.

[stue]

lowcostdolly

I did exactly the same as you just described above going through LGW security as crew about a week ago. I still had my half drunk 1.5L bottle of “Highland Spring” crew water in my flight bag from the day before, I completely forgot it was there. My bag goes though the scanner and comes out the other side completely untouched, where I get dressed again and move to one side to wait for the rest of the crew.

At which point I can see one of our CC members getting a bit of a grilling because one of the containers for a liquid she has didn’t physically say “100ml” on it. In reality, it was a lot less than a 100ml container, but because 100ml was not wrote on the side of the container, the staff there claimed they could not be sure to it being less than 100ml. The fact that it was half the size of the containers that she had which did have 100ml wrote on it meant nothing. So, she loses the liquid. She was newish to the airline, only having started half way through our summer season and our airline was the first airline she had worked for, and she had tried to do everything right to get liquids threw security. I felt quit sorry for her to be honest.

Then we get to the aircraft, I go to get out my headset from my bag, and to my surprise I realise iv still got my crew water in from yesterday!!

Words failed both the skipper and I!

From my point of view, as both crew and SLF, its the inconsistency when passing through security that is the problem.

[Final 3 Greens]

I'm not sure that is the sort of "fresh view and understanding of the proccesses" that should be brought back to UK. However the officer was charming to me so all is well....

Stuff I have inadvertently taken through UK security without detection


penkife
water (several times)
aftershave
suncream in pouch
contact lens fluid


If you are trying to argue that UK security is mean, but totally thorough, then it doesn't wash.

What does stack up is that it is the intention, not the possession of these items that determines the threat.

Danny has argued for profiling several times in the past; I support his argument and would feel much safer if we were less reliant on technology and more on highly trained security personnel using questioning skills.

[ExXB]

In some ways you can say this insanity is working, we haven't had a successful black-hat event for a long time. But is this because of the security, or in spite of it?

Why don't we screen all passengers (shoes on, liquids and lap-tops in the bag, no restrictions) but do a extensive search (pat down, visual inspection of bag) of 5 or 10%.

If I was a black-hat, I wouldn't risk a 1 in 10, or 1 in 20 chance of getting caught.

Ah, if wishes were horses, ....

[PAXboy]

SkipnessThat's Running an Airport 1.01 and BAA can't do it. It's not rocket science but somehow our lot arse it up every time.Just to be contrary (Wot me?) ... I would suggest that BAA do NOT @rse it up but get it RIGHT every time! Right, that is, for their shareholders to spend minimal amounts of money. The fact that they are killing the golden goose is not visible to them. The short terminism was in BAA before it was privatised and it will not change.

When a govt department, they followed govt diktat, now they follow shareholder diktat and the customer has never featured for them in anything other than PoerPoint presentations. :*

[lowcostdolly]

Stue - I couldn't agree more!! The only thing that is consistent within the staff Channels is the inconsistency :(. One day my 20mls aprox of used hand gel is explosive because it contains traces of something the next day it's fine. My regulation blunt ended scissors as are classed as a lethal weapon requiring supervisor attendance to confiscate one day but the next day they are "tools of the trade" and let through......I could go on.

I personally have never experienced that in the SLF channels where everything has been scrutinised when searched to the minutest detail in the UK/USA post 9/11. I've also been asked the appropriate questions in a polite way. I'm afraid I can't say the same for my experiences re thouroughness in other european countries/the African continent but they have been equally, if not more, polite. I'm not in any way racist these are just my own experiences, others I'm sure will have different.

F3G Good morning :) Did I say security in the UK was "mean"? Think you will find the opposite. Everyone else on this thread thinks they are mean!!

Err.... a penknife :eek:!! Shame on you as a frequent flyer you should know you have to read the large notices at check in re dangerous goods to jog your memory ;). Still shouldn't have cleared security though.

I think what started out as a bit of a rant has turned into a really interesting thread which affects/concerns all of us in different ways. It's a shame nobody from security is reading it/responding with their take on things.

[Guest 112233]

I can only agree with the thought we are largely responsible for our own current predicament. We "live" in a society of our own making where the design of many jobs is subjugated to the interests of the maximisation of profit. A butchers hook for training or the persuance of professional pride and conduct.
No matter what level in the organisation be it an Airport, A Bank or a Government Dept. Its muddle through or go and S*d off .

Security, a vital process in the conveyance of travelling pax. What do we get ? Barriers ! look good for the "Clear and persistant threat brigade" - The process of "booking in" formed a natural barrier both physical and psycological - What have we got ? A bunch of often underpayed individuals secured at minimum cost by a third party to monitor agrivated pax through cramped terminals not designed for this mode of mass screening. This effort has made the process of travel less attractive for people as a whole. Hence the postings here. Its in the interests of those in power to "keep the kettle boiling" - Thank Bin Laden (His Talibs and he CIA), Bush, Blair and Chaney et Al - PS we did not elect "Brown" - All Hail Democracy and good day to one and all.

CAT III

[Final 3 Greens]

Err.... a penknife !! Shame on you as a frequent flyer you should know you have to read the large notices at check in re dangerous goods to jog your memory .

Yeah, you could really do some damage with a 5cm blade, compared to a litre glass bottle with the big end knocked off to leave jagged edges:ugh:

And therein lies the problem. The security focuses on objects and these are only a threat when used by people with bad intentions.

[lowcostdolly]

F3G Hiya :)

Sorry I must have completely misread your post. I thourght you said you had taken a penknife through security without detection not a broken bottle. Please tell me they didn't miss that :confused:!

With all due respect you could seriously injure somebody with a 5cm blade if that was what you took? I think that is why they, along with glass bottles and any other sharp objects, should be declared/detected/confiscated prior to boarding. That is a shared responsibility between the pax, check in staff and security and everyone plays an equal part.

That also applies to liquids as well nowadays yet you seem to have got quite a lot of your liquids on board without detection and on several occasions. I hope when you flagged that up to the appropriate peeps you were assured extra training would be provided to the personnel concerned?

I totally agree with the last point of your response re objects being the focus and not intentions. All I would ask anyone here is how could anyone possibly screen intentions? Questions I don't think would do it as the bad guys and gals would just lie and provide the appropriate positive responses.

I don't know enough about profiling to comment and btw who is Danny? I am fairly new to pprune so may have missed something here that more experienced peeps are aware of?

[Final 3 Greens]

Hi LCD

All I would ask anyone here is how could anyone possibly screen intentions?

El Al’s passenger screening system, established in the early 1970s, relies on psychological profiling techniques backed up with high-technology equipment. This system has been highly effective: the last successful hijacking of an El Al jet was in 1968, when Palestinian terrorists diverted a flight from Rome to Algiers.34 Whereas the United States gives priority to screening baggage rather than people, Israel’s security model aims at ferreting out individuals with terrorist intentions. This profiling process relies on access to intelligence and careful observation of would-be passengers.

Another situation in which profiling has proven effective is in the case of a “duped passenger”—a naïve individual who has been manipulated by terrorists to carry an explosive device on board an aircraft. In 1986, Anne-Marie Murphy, a 32-year-old Irish woman, was interviewed at Heathrow Airport before boarding an El Al flight from London to Tel Aviv. When asked the purpose of her trip, she said that she was traveling to Israel to see her Jordanian fiancé, the father of her unborn child. Two factors made the interviewer suspicious: it was unusual for a pregnant young woman to travel alone, and although Ms. Murphy said she planned to stay in Israel for a week, she did not check any luggage and had only one carry-on bag. Further questioning revealed that she planned to stay at the Tel Aviv Hilton and to pay with a credit card. When the card was examined, it proved to be an ID that allowed her only to cash checks in the United Kingdom. At this point, Ms. Murphy was declared a suspicious traveler and subjected to greater scrutiny. Her carry-on bag was emptied, weighed, and found to be unusually heavy. X-ray examination revealed a false bottom containing a grayish material that proved to be plastic explosive. Unbeknownst to Ms. Murphy, her fiancé was a Palestinian terrorist who had concealed in her bag a bomb designed to detonate in flight, with the intent of killing all 375 passengers on board.

For example, when Richard Reid (the future “shoe bomber”) decided to fly in July 2001 from Amsterdam to Israel, allegedly to check out terrorist targets, El Al security personnel selected him for profiling and subjected him to a full security check from head to toe (including an X-ray scan of his shoes) that showed he carried no bomb or weapon. Although Reid was allowed to board the plane, El Al remained suspicious and made sure he was sitting near an armed sky marshal, who was instructed to keep a close watch on him.

reference is Strategies for Countering Terrorism – Lessons from the Israeli Experience COIN Central (http://coincentral.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/strategies-for-countering-terrorism-lessons-from-the-israeli-experience/)


Danny is an airline captain, who (with Rob) founded PPrune and for various reasons is pretty up to speed on this type of profiling.

By the way, how to you intend to confiscate the duty free bottles that are the potential lethal objects I was refering to?

[lowcostdolly]

Thanks F3G for all that info.....I will read it properly on the standby's I have coming up :)

I've had the EL AL security experience quite a few years ago. I seem to remember having to turn up hours (and I do mean hours) before my flight. I was greeted by extremely surly security officers but they were meticulous with their procedures. I also remember having to wait in line for quite a long time for them to carry these out. That is pretty simular to the experiences I've had in the USA more recently.....surly officers barking out orders, long lines to clear loads of seperate checks.

I've not heard anyone complain about this because of the threat levels presumably but the minute it hits our shores we are up in arms. Why should we be any different...the threat is just as real isn't it?

Granted there is room for improvement within BAA which you have demonstrated really well by being able to take your knife through intentionally or not.......personally I think that is unbelievable but I'm sure you flagged it up to the right peeps. I also think it's a lot more worrying than the politeness/organisational issues which started this thread originally.

Just one more thing before I leave this thread. I really must dust my crystal ball more often! I didn't know you were refering to duty free bottles because you didn't tell me. Exactly my point re intentions.....nobody knows. I thought we were still back at check in with the offending knife/bottle and the large notice telling all pax they shouldn't be in hand luggage......;)

Re said "lethal weapon" on board I would do exactly what I always do with any potentially brewing incident involving alchohol.....confiscate the offending article until it's owner disembarks. As CC I have the power to do that under the air navigation orders. The alarm bells usually start ringing on this one when the loud groups of stags and hens board and then order 20 cokes!!! These are the peeps who carefully place their vodka bottles under the seat in front so they can then add their alchohol and think we don't know. Handled early and properly it shouldn't escalate to problems later on. Hope that answers your question.

[west lakes]

Though not by any means a "frequent flyer" I travel through LGW (N) a couple of times a year.
Never had any problems with security, despite carrying medical sharps always declared, always advise I have a Doctor's note (and NEVER been asked for it), the only delays I have encountered in security are from fellow passengers who don't understand/read the advice on display.
Never had the surly types referred too, is it because I tend to be pleasent to them & treat them as human beings?
To be honest the only delay I ever had was caused by check-in at the Loco that took over GB Airways.

[Final 3 Greens]

I thought we were still back at check in with the offending knife/bottle and the large notice telling all pax they shouldn't be in hand luggage......


Buy litre of spirits in glass bottle at tax free shop
Board airraft, stow bottle
When ready to make mischief, smash bottle against solid object
Run riot slashing everyone in range


Now do you see why it is the intention that is the concern, not the object?; millions of people carry glass bottles on flights every year, I am sure that loads of people inadvertently take knives on, too.

BTW, a businessman I know accidentally left a knife in his bag found it and declared it to the scanners at a well known UK airport.

His reward for his honesty was to have them call the police. He was prosecuted, earned a criminal record and was given community service.

And you ask me if I told them when I found I had left mine in the case? What do you think?

[lowcostdolly]

Honestly F3G you really wouldn't want to know what I think about what you and your aquaintence did.

You and presumably your businessman colleague are frequent flyers.....well aquainted with the procedures when flying as your posts frequently show.

In an earlier post you said you had "inadvertently" taken a knife on board. This was to show (I think) that security could be beaten. Good for you .....you demonstrated that.

However now it seems according to your post below you knew you had a knife with you because you say you found it. You therefore intentionally took that knife on board.

I'm also confused as to how neither of you could not know you were carrying a knife given:

You both would have confirmed you packed your own bags and nobody tampered with them at check in.
You would have confirmed you were carrying no sharp items when questioned. If you packed your own bags then you would know what you were carrying.
There are notices right under your nose at check in re dangerous goods to remind you
If you/your colleague found the knife between check in and security you could have handed it to one of the many armed Police Officers which patrol all airports for safe disposal prior to getting to security. That would have been the responsible thing to do.So your friend got arrested at security because the scanners picked up a knife.......security are doing there job then. The scanners do not pick up intentions and in todays climate the officers have to assume the worse.

A few years ago I dealt with an incident on board involving a 4 year old boy and his toy gun. Clearly he didn't have any intentions but around 15 other adults sitted around him didn't care. They just cared it was on board at all.

What I think doesn't matter :(. What I know is that the law was broken. You both took a potentially lethal weapon to an airport and you then took it on board a plane. You didn't get caught.....lucky you. Your friend faced the consequences when he was caught.

It's lucky you were not stopped at customs the other end for a random search. They might have called the police as well had they found your knife.

Over in the questions forum there is a thread on dangerous goods and asking for people to highlight incidences......you may be able to have some input which would be helpful to the poster.

[clareprop]

So your friend got arrested at security because the scanners picked up a knife.......
Your friend faced the consequences when he was caught.


Sweetiepeep, With your eye's screwed tight and your little fists bunched up, you didn't read what F3G said. Have another look..

[Final 3 Greens]

Lowcost dolly

You said.....

Granted there is room for improvement within BAA which you have demonstrated really well by being able to take your knife through intentionally or not.......personally I think that is unbelievable but I'm sure you flagged it up to the right peeps.

and I replied.....

BTW, a businessman I know accidentally left a knife in his bag found it and declared it to the scanners at a well known UK airport.

His reward for his honesty was to have them call the police. He was prosecuted, earned a criminal record and was given community service.

And you ask me if I told them when I found I had left mine in the case? What do you think?

1) I found the knife some days after I had arrived home - your statement did not specify the action being dependent on when I found it

2) Here is a definition of 'inadvertent" from the Oxford Dictionary

inadvertent
· adj. not resulting from or achieved through deliberate planning.
– DERIVATIVES inadvertence n. inadvertency n. inadvertently adv.
– ORIGIN C17: from in-1 + L. advertent-, advertere ‘turn the mind to’.

I am very pleased that you dealt with the four years old, who obviously had a clear intention of having some fun; tut, tut.....

[Skipness One Echo]

BTW, a businessman I know accidentally left a knife in his bag found it and declared it to the scanners at a well known UK airport.


The sheer amount of regulation in the modern world takes no account of intent in the way that a criminal proceeding used to have to. It's lazy and lowest common denominator where we're all likely murderers. There is no common sense applied as the people applying the rules were not employed to have any and are permitted no discretion.

[lowcostdolly]

Clareprop.....sweetheart! :rolleyes:

Yes I did read what he/she put....all the way through the patronising posts. It's quite clear that he/she thinks it's OK to take a knife on board an aircraft because h/she thinks it won't cause as much damage as a jagged bottle :ugh:

If we want to apply that rationale then the whole aircraft is a lethal weapon which can cause much more damage than a jagged bottle..... sadly demonstrated by 9/11. Security didn't pick up the intentions then did they? Perhaps we should just ban air travel altogether if we don't agree with the procedures that are in place now to try and risk manage potential/actual threats.

Apparently, said businessman declared the knife at the scanners....don't buy it I'm afraid. If you pack your own bags which you would have to declare then you know if you have a knife in it.

Also F3G now says he found his said knife "days afterwards"......above rationale applies here as well. Packed own bag and declared same truthfully to check in? Then you know whats in it.

Skipness makes a valid point regarding " being treated as likely murders". That's exactly how aircrew (as well as pax) are treated everyday until we prove otherwise with the contents of our bags. We also have to prove we are not likely to be pre employment in order to get an airside pass which gives us a valid reason to be airside by virtue of our employment. Some may argue this is right as we have far more access airside and more frequently than the pax do. I keep saying it but nobody understand this.....you cannot screen intentions. That applies to crew and pax and BAA have to act accordingly.

The pax valid reason for being airside is demonstrated by their boarding pass. Anyone remember the thread and fuss recently re having to produce that....;)

We have to declare sharp objects etc and we are not allowed to take knives on board either. There is no valid reason for anyone, crew or pax, to have a knife in their bag when travelling unless you have special dispensation. MOD flights have this sometimes with weapons.

If I remember this thread started because some pax were disgruntled by the way they percieved BAA treats them. If you turn up at security thinking you know better and are above their procedures (which does come across in this thread) then I'm afraid this will probably show at security and you will reap what you sow. That happens to crew as well and is why I am polite and couteous at all times to them.

BTW F3G I didn't deal with the 4 year old little boy who did just want to have fun!! I dealt with the 10+ tantruming "adults" around him who couldn't recognise the little ones intentions on this. Like some of your post perhaps I didn't make this clear :)

We all have different insights,experiences and views on this subject. I think the adult thing would be just for all of us to agree to differ but obey the rules and be nice anyway.

[Xeque]

"Methinks she protesteth too much" :)
Give it a rest. The whole thing is absurd. We can't help it if you don't see it that way too.
For ordinary, law abiding people who just want to get from point A to point B in the easiest and least unpleasant manner, today's government inspired awfulness is, simply, inexcusable.
We can still choose our airlines based on whether we want to be ritually abused, simply ripped off or (perhaps) when there are are still some airlines that actually care, we like the way we are treated by them.
But having done that we still have to run the gauntlet (in the UK at any rate) of systems and procedures inspired by fools and administered by cretins who have no right to be anywhere close to real people.
A trip through any far eastern or asia-pacific airport where the same security considerations apply, will amply demonstrate this.
As I have said more than once in these forums, I am (these days) prepared to arrive into a UK major airport but for departures I take the Eurostar to a convenient European airport.
I do not need the sh1t dealt out by security personnel at UK airports so I don't accept it.

[lowcostdolly]

Xeque..... Perhaps you need to attend ground zero regularly to realise why somebody/anybody might feel strongly on issues in a thread such as this.

Airline security these days has a lot of significance to some people more than others and for different reasons.

[clareprop]

Calm down darlin'. We all understand the issue.

[Skipness One Echo]

Airline security these days has a lot of significance to some people more than others and for different reasons.

Can you answer the point as to why the UK experience is a lot less professional than certain other nations? Perhaps they are just incompetent foreigners or Xeque is right and we could learn something from the way they do things.

Once (misplaced ) ideas are planted institutionally they become endemic, free from rationale and logic and take generations to remove. Think of the Met stopping one of their own community agents over 100 times ( he was black ). Think of the mad ideas we have of testing every five year old child, and again at six and seven and so on...... Once the madness is in place, it takes on a life of it's own alas.

Quantify : number of passengers vs number of individuals with intent to casue death in flight = tiny minority. Clarion call of "It only takes one to get through." add in a dose of rushed legislation and poorly thought out rules and the result is the aircraft commander cannot be trusted to take a yoghurt pot through security and onto a flight deck where he sits nexy to a fire axe.

Two ears one mouth I think is the expression.